Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
274 F.R.D. 305
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek to compel EPA action on endangerment findings and rulemaking for greenhouse gas emissions from non-road sources including aircraft.
- Movants (ATA, NBAA, AIA, GAMA) move to intervene in support of EPA; EPA takes no position; plaintiffs oppose intervention.
- Court addresses both movants’ interventions together and denies them relief.
- Plaintiffs submitted petitions in 2007–2008; EPA issued an Advance Notice but did not decide on endangerment findings.
- Movants argue they have standing and that intervention is warranted as of right or permissively; court analyzes standing and Rule 24(b) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movants have standing to intervene as of right | Movants claim standing through potential economic harm from future regulations | EPA does not concede standing; injury would be contingent | Movants lack Article III standing; cannot intervene as of right |
| Whether movants may intervene permissively | Movants have a shared legal question and concrete interest | Even with shared interests, intervention would unduly delay/undermine adjudication | Permissive intervention denied; court discretion to deny |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (intervenor standing and injury-in-fact requirements apply to intervention)
- Building and Construction Trades Dept. v. Reich, 40 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (standing and interest requirements for intervention)
- United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standing requirements and causal connection to relief)